Harper v. Flatt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a defendant had \targeted] the Delaware market” by \selling] the accused product to the nationwide reseller Costco with the expectation that Costco will sell the accused product in all parts of the United States, including Delaware”
• holding Rule 4(k)(2) is only applicable if the case \arises under federal law and is not pending before the court pursuant to the court's diversity jurisdiction\
• explaining that the dual jurisdiction theory involves a combination of (c)(1) and (c)(4) and “requires a showing of both: (1) an intent to serve the Delaware market; and (2
• stating that “[c]onsidered as a whole, the record reflects that [the defendant’s] intended targeting of the Delaware market resulted in the introduction of the accused product into Delaware” where defendant knew a distributor sold its products in Delaware
• finding jurisdiction under Section 3104(c)(3) based on the defendants’ distribution of windshield wiper blades in the stream of commerce, which were then sold by the plaintiff to a retail location in Delaware

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).